For Complainant : Self
For OPs 1 & 2 : Sri Biresh Patnaik, Advocate & associates.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he being persuaded by the OP.1 and its agent, proposed for a policy namely “Reliance Child Plan” for his children with premium paying term of 6 years and accordingly has deposited Rs.9997/- as yearly premium from the date of commencement of the policy i.e. 31.05.2011 till the last premium dt.06.05.2016. It is submitted that the complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs.59, 982/- during the policy period of 6 years and has received money back of Rs.11, 445/- X 3 = Rs.34, 335/- during the subsistence of the policy and also has further received Rs.17, 858/- at the time of maturity during 05/2017 and thus received a total sum of Rs.52, 193/- against total deposit of Rs.59, 982/-. The complainant submitted that he has less received Rs.7789/- from the premium deposit amount of Rs.59, 982/- under a child plan. The complainant further submitted that the child plan is a conventional plan meant for the future of the children as told by the Ops but finally the depositors are being deceived by the Ops by getting lesser amount in maturity against their respective deposits. Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.7789/- towards differential amount with interest @ 18% p.a. from 05/2011 and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the child plan policy obtained by the complainant vide Policy No.18940196 on 06.05.2011 with yearly premium of Rs.10, 000/- to be payable for a period of 6 years. The Ops contended that the policy covers a sum assured of Rs.45, 780/- and the complainant has deposited Rs.60, 220/- towards premium in 6 years and also has received Rs.52, 193/- as per policy terms. With these and other contentions denying any unfair trade practice on their part, prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant but during pendency of this case, the Ops have filed a settlement application stating that without going into the merits of the matter, they are ready to settle the case by paying refund of premium amount of Rs.7789/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement of the subject policy.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. The Ops have also filed certain documents along with affidavit by way of evidence in support of their case. Heard from the complainant and the A/R for the Ops at length and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case, after filing a settlement application, the Ops have taken adjournments to convince the complainant to receive the settlement amount but in spite of several adjournments, this Commission is yet to get any reply from any of the parties regarding such settlement and hence we have decided to dispose of the matter on merit taking the settlement application of the Ops into consideration.
5. It is seen that the complainant has prayed for return of Rs.7789/- with interest from the Ops, to which the Ops have conceded through their settlement application. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to go into the other merits of this case between the parties but to award Rs.7789/- in favour of the complainant towards short fall amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from 06.05.2017 (date of maturity) till payment which will be just and proper. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.
6. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.7789/- towards differential amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from 06.05.2017 till payment besides a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
